Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nina-mcp

nina-mcp

by anarcoiris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

nina_weather_info

Retrieve current weather station status including connection, cloud cover, wind, temperature, humidity, pressure, sky quality, and rain rate.

Instructions

Get weather station status: connection, cloud cover, wind, temperature, humidity, pressure, sky quality, rain rate (fields depend on what your weather device reports).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "nina_weather_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get weather station status,' implying a read operation, but does not confirm it is non-destructive, safe, or discuss any side effects, auth needs, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with a list of fields, which is concise and front-loaded. It could benefit from more structure, but it avoids unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description lists expected fields but notes they depend on the weather device, leaving some ambiguity. It does not explain the return format or confirm that a single station is covered, which is adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info (none exist), but also does not mislead. It focuses on output fields, which is acceptable for a parameterless tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves weather station status, listing specific fields (cloud cover, wind, temperature, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling info tools like nina_camera_info or nina_dome_info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While the description implies use for weather data, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of required conditions or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools